WASHINGTON -- The Crusades may be causing more devastation today than they ever did in the three centuries when most of them were fought, according to one expert.

Robert Spencer, author of "Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)" (Regnery), claims that the damage is not in terms of lives lost and property destroyed but is a more subtle destruction.

Spencer shared with ZENIT how false ideas about the Crusades are being used by extremists to foment hostility to the West today.

Q: The Crusades are often portrayed as a militarily offensive venture. Were they?

Spencer: No. Pope Urban II, who called for the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont in 1095, was calling for a defensive action -- one that was long overdue.

As he explained, he was calling the Crusade because without any defensive action, "the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked" by the Turks and other Muslim forces.

"For, as most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George," Pope Urban II said in his address. "They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire.

"If you permit them to continue thus for a while with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them."

He was right. Jihad warfare had from the seventh century to the time of Pope Urban conquered and Islamized what had been over half of Christendom. There had been no response from the Christian world until the Crusades.

Q: What are some popular misconceptions about the Crusades?

Spencer: One of the most common is the idea that the Crusades were an unprovoked attack by Europe against the Islamic world.

In fact, the conquest of Jerusalem in 638 stood at the beginning of centuries of Muslim aggression, and Christians in the Holy Land faced an escalating spiral of persecution.

Early in the eighth century 60 Christian pilgrims from Amorium were crucified; around the same time the Muslim governor of Caesarea seized a group of pilgrims from Iconium and had them all executed as spies -- except for a small number who converted to Islam.

Muslims also demanded money from pilgrims, threatening to ransack the Church of the Resurrection if they didn't pay.

Later in the eighth century, a Muslim ruler banned displays of the cross in Jerusalem. He also increased the tax on non-Muslims -- jizya -- that Christians had to pay and forbade Christians to engage in religious instruction of their own children and fellow believers.

Early in the ninth century the persecutions grew so severe that large numbers of Christians fled for Constantinople and other Christian cities. In 937, Muslims went on a rampage in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, plundering and destroying the Church of Calvary and the Church of the Resurrection.

In 1004, the Fatimid Caliph, Abu 'Ali al-Mansur al-Hakim, ordered the destruction of churches, the burning of crosses, and the seizure of church property. Over the next 10 years 30,000 churches were destroyed, and untold numbers of Christians converted to Islam simply to save their lives.

In 1009, al-Hakim commanded that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem be destroyed, along with several other churches, including the Church of the Resurrection. In 1056, the Muslims expelled 300 Christians from Jerusalem and forbade European Christians from entering the rebuilt Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

When the Seljuk Turks took Jerusalem in 1077, the Seljuk Emir Atsiz bin Uwaq promised not to harm the inhabitants, but once his men had entered the city, they murdered 3,000 people.

Another common misconception is that the Crusades were fought to convert Muslims to Christianity by force. Glaringly absent from every report about Pope Urban's address at the Council of Claremont is any command to the Crusaders to convert Muslims.

It was not until over 100 years after the First Crusade, in the 13th century, that European Christians made any organized attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity, when the Franciscans began missionary work among Muslims in lands held by the Crusaders. This effort was largely unsuccessful.

Yet another misconception revolves around the Crusaders' bloody sack of Jerusalem in 1099.

The capture of Jerusalem is often portrayed as unique in medieval history, and as the cause of Muslim mistrust of the West. It might be more accurate to say that it was the start of a millennium of anti-Western grievance mongering and propaganda.

The Crusaders' sack of Jerusalem was a heinous crime -- particularly in light of the religious and moral principles they professed to uphold. However, by the military standards of the day, it was not actually anything out of the ordinary.

In those days, it was a generally accepted principle of warfare that if a city under siege resisted capture, it could be sacked, and while if it did not resist, mercy would be shown. It is a matter of record that Muslim armies frequently behaved in exactly the same way when entering a conquered city.

This is not to excuse the Crusaders' conduct by pointing to similar actions. One atrocity does not excuse another. But it does illustrate that the Crusaders' behavior in Jerusalem was consistent with that of other armies of the period -- since all states subscribed to the same notions of siege and resistance.

In 1148, Muslim commander Nur ed-Din did not hesitate to order the killing of every Christian in Aleppo. In 1268, when the jihad forces of the Mamluk Sultan Baybars took Antioch from the Crusaders, Baybars was annoyed to find that the Crusader ruler had already left the city -- so he wrote to him bragging of his massacres of Christians.

Most notorious of all may be the jihadists' entry into Constantinople on May 29, 1453, when they, according to historian Steven Runciman, "slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women and children without discrimination."

Finally, it is a misconception that Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades. He did not.

There is no doubt that the belief that Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades is widespread. When he died, the Washington Post reminded its readers "during his long reign, Pope John Paul II apologized to Muslims for the Crusades, to Jews for anti-Semitism, to Orthodox Christians for the sacking of Constantinople, to Italians for the Vatican's associations with the Mafia and to scientists for the persecution of Galileo."

However, John Paul II never actually apologized for the Crusades. The closest he came was on March 12, 2000, the "Day of Pardon."

During his homily he said: "We cannot fail to recognize the infidelities to the Gospel committed by some of our brethren, especially during the second millennium. Let us ask pardon for the divisions which have occurred among Christians, for the violence some have used in the service of the truth and for the distrustful and hostile attitudes sometimes taken toward the followers of other religions."

This is hardly a clear apology for the Crusades.

Q: How have Muslims perceived the Crusades then and now?

Spencer: For centuries, when the Ottoman Empire was thriving, the Crusades were not a preoccupation of the Islamic world. They were, after all, failures from a Western standpoint.

However, with the decline of the military power and unity of the Islamic world, and the concomitant rise of the West, they have become a focal point of Muslim resentment of perceived Western encroachment and exploitation.

Q: To what extent are false ideas about the Crusades being used by extremists to foment hostility to the West today?

Spencer: The Crusades may be causing more devastation today than they ever did in the three centuries when most of them were fought -- but not in terms of lives lost and property destroyed. Today's is a more subtle destruction.

The Crusades have become a cardinal sin not only of the Catholic Church but also of the Western world in general.

They are Exhibit A for the case that the current strife between the Muslim world and Western, post-Christian civilization is ultimately the responsibility of the West, which has provoked, exploited, and brutalized Muslims ever since the first Frankish warriors entered Jerusalem.

Osama bin Laden has spoken of his organization not as al-Qaida but of a "World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," and called in a fatwa for "jihad against Jews and Crusaders."

Such usage is widespread. On November 8, 2002 -- shortly before the beginning of the Iraqi war that toppled Saddam Hussein -- Sheikh Bakr Abed Al-Razzaq Al-Samaraai preached in Baghdad's Mother of All Battles mosque about "this difficult hour in which the Islamic nation [is] experiencing, an hour in which it faces the challenge of [forces] of disbelief of infidels, Jews, crusaders, Americans and Britons."

Similarly, when Islamic jihadists bombed the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in December 2004, they explained that the attack was part of larger plan to strike back at "Crusaders": "This operation comes as part of several operations that are organized and planned by al-Qaida as part of the battle against the crusaders and the Jews, as well as part of the plan to force the unbelievers to leave the Arabian Peninsula," the jihadists said in a statement.

They also said that jihad warriors "managed to enter one of the crusaders' big castles in the Arabian Peninsula and managed to enter the American consulate in Jeddah, in which they control and run the country."

In the face of this, Westerners should not be embarrassed by the Crusades. It's time to say, "enough," and teach our children to take pride in their own heritage.

They should know that they have a culture and a history of which they can and should be grateful; that they are not the children and grandchildren of oppressors and villains; and that their homes and families are worth defending against those who want to take them away, and are willing to kill to do so.

Well, the 1st Crusade was called to assist the Byzantine empire which was being invaded (cities taken) by the Muslims. Now it was called much later than it was requested and when the crusaders actually arrived at Byzantium, it was a surprise. Many didn't know what they were doing, and the Byzantines pushed them across the river because they seemed more of a threat than not. They made lots of mistakes, changed lots of plans during the 1st Crusade. And for the most part it was a fiasco.

Was it defensive? Yes, I suppose so. Was it a just war? I don't know. Were there war crimes on both sides? Yes. This is a good book on the topic:

As for Bush, who knows what he is going to do, or for that matter, what any of our leaders are going to do. I suspect that they will keep up the ROP nonsense until there is another massive attack or something else that makes it patently ridiculous.

According to the Hoover Institution policy document that someone posted here this week, a long campaign of some 70 years is expected, mostly "fought" through diplomacy, with the response to "extremists" being only localized and more on the order of reaction than part of a grand plan. In other words, the same non-strategy that we have been following since 1977.

What I don't understand is our willingness to let the Muslims initiate the actions and control the timing, and our blindness to the fact that the problem is far greater than it was in 1977. Not only are our enemies now possessed of seriously threatening weapons, there are Muslims spread throughout formerly friendly countries and agitating for our blood.

As Churchill said, "The nation had the lion's heart. I had the luck to give the roar"...

Bush has the lion's heart (IMHO) but he has yet to give the defining roar. He has yet to fully define the enemy. I can't say I blame him...it is the job of a lifetime. But it is his to give...and he has yet to give the "roar."

14
posted on 03/11/2006 6:10:53 PM PST
by Dark Skies
("A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants." -- Churchill)

Good article. The leftists usually buy Islamic argument that the West is 'deserved' to be hated because they colonized many "Islamic countries" before. This caused the animosity among the Muslim toward the West.

I would say, if we accept that line of argument, we also have to accept the argument that the West 'deserves to hate' Muslims because at the beginning, it was Muslims who conquered Christian lands, converted the Christians, and even captured Constantinople: the Second Rome!

I don't recall the details, but as Spencer mentioned in the article, the Crusaders killed many people in the city. It was common practice at the time to sack a city that was taken by storm, and sack included indiscriminate slaughter.

Many Christians were killed, as well as most Muslims and probably Jews as well. Unfortunately, this was one of the periods in Europe when Jews were persecuted on a wide scale.

To Muslim is Holy. Anybody become Muslim is Holy. One word from mouth, it is always correct. So, that mean no "liar". For example, if a muslim say "I like this girl". she will belong to him forever. Very strange, against freedom will. To them, they have right to conquer land. You must remember, they follow Abraham and 12 tribe of Israel in Canaan land. No matter how or what, they always right. Anyway, they are everywhere. The only best respond is to pray ROSARY. the only source of weapon that Mother Mary gave to us. Most important, Church must UNITE!!! Become ONE. I can tell you Muslim will felt to ground and start REVENGE and HATRED at us. Be on your guard and pray! MOSES use staff defeat egypt army, why not ROSARY conguer Devil!

The Jews were military allies of the Muslims in some areas. It was apparently the case in Jerusalem. I read about this awhile ago and can't find that source. It takes some work to dig up a real history of this area.

Anyway, the Christian population of Jerusalem had been expelled into a devastated land to starve prior to the arrival of the Crusaders. The Crusaders came upon the survivors of this action and it was a reason they used to put to death the defenders of the city after it was captured.

Here is a source that references that action, "Within the city a large Fatimid Egyptian force was awaiting their approach. The Egyptian army was well trained and had carefully stocked the city with arms and provisions in anticipation of a protracted siege. Jerusalem's most topographically vulnerable northern fortifications were strengthened. In the surrounding countryside the defending Moslem army had poisoned cisterns and conducted a scorched earth policy in order to deny the advancing Crusaders vital supplies. In order to avoid possible betrayal from within The city's Fatimid rulers expelled its Christian population prior to the Crusaders'arrival." http://www.biu.ac.il/js/rennert/history_9.html

Here's a book I think would be very instructive (I haven't read it) "The Jew As Ally of the Muslim: Medieval Roots of Anti-Semitism" by Allan Harris Cutler and Helen Elmquist Cutler Commentary, http://www.danielpipes.org/article/33

They might have. But it's irrelevant to the argument that the Muslims did capture Constantinople, the second Rome. Plus, it's not like the Muslims was never trying to attack the city before it finally fell.

That is a monumental understatement to say that the crusades "might have" contributed. to the end of the Byzantine empire.

The fourth Crusade was essentially used by the Venetians as a ploy to assemble an army and send it against Constantinople. The Christian east never recovered, and left a power vacuum that the Arab Muslims exploited. If you want to argue who started it, and what sparked the first Crusade, and the second and the Richard The Lion Hearted and his third crusade, that was the result of the Arab Muslim Tsunami destroying the Greek world that had existed since Alexander the Great. This included the Ptomlomics, the Seleucid's etc. But to argue that the fourth Crusade was not an evil power grab by scheming Venetians that destroyed the Christan East is just silly.

36
posted on 03/12/2006 8:53:28 AM PST
by DariusBane
(I do not separate people, as do the narrow-minded, into Greeks and barbarians.)

I really doubt this. The 'Israelites', as they were called, did not constitute a compact political entity in any part of the muslim world of the 11th century. But killing the whole population of a city after its defeat was very common. As there was no way to identify friend from foe, especially when they both spoke a same completely different unknown language.

But the fact that Jews were then living in 'relative' peace within moslem communities in the moslem world is very well known to the scholars. Look at

Armies of the First Crusade took control of Jerusalem in July 1099. This illustration depicts the subsequent sack of the city, during which Crusaders massacred its Egyptian defenders and inhabitants. Having captured the holy city for Christianity, the Crusaders established Jerusalem as the center of the Latin Kingdom.

40
posted on 03/12/2006 10:53:41 AM PST
by Cannoneer No. 4
(Our enemies act on ecstatic revelations from their god. We act on the advice of lawyers.)

During his intifada I recall seeing that man of peace, Yasir Arafat, remember him?, pounding on a table, yelling and spitting on himself and everyone around him like a madman. That 7-day beard he always had (I guess nobody would tell him; shave Yasir, shave) and that towel on his head that he always brought to a point. He shouted over and over jihad jihad jihad jihad jihad jihad jihad jihad jihad....... All I could think of was

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.